Gangs of 'happy slappers' face jail terms of up to 16 years under a sentencing regime handed down to the courts yesterday.

Judges were told that thugs who film their attacks with mobile phones and put the footage on the internet should be given greatly increased punishments.

And premeditated knife attacks should result in prison terms of up to 13 years.

Scroll down for more...

A filmed attack: tougher penalites will be enforced on 'happy slappers'

But the Sentencing Guidelines Council also recommended leniency for some thugs even though they might have caused grievous bodily harm, or attacked a policeman, or in some cases used a knife to cause injury.

The Council, led by Lord Chief Justice Lord Phillips, said it was urging leniency for those found guilty of less serious attacks in order to give longer jail sentences to the most violent thugs.

Anyone given a 16-year sentence would serve at least eight years in jail before they could hope for release.

The Council said: "Violent offenders who carry weapons to the scene of a crime and use them on victims should face severe sentences."

It singled out "happy slappers", saying that the use of mobile phones to film attacks should result in a harsher punishment.

From next month, an offence will be deemed "even more serious where there is further humiliation of victims through publishing the attack on the internet".

Under the rules, which will operate in place of a complex series of precedents laid down by the Appeal Court, attackers who inflict the worst injuries will be given sentences ranging between ten and 16 years.

Tougher sentences are to be given where attackers have operated in a gang, deliberately sought out vulnerable victims or attacked those who are protecting or serving the public.

In cases of the worst assaults, where the victim suffers grave injuries, attackers should be given sentences of up to 16 years.

Scroll down for more...

Happy slap attack: Recording an assault could be treated as an aggravating factor in court (posed by models)

But community sentences may be given if an attack was not premeditated.

In cases of grievous bodily harm - a category of assault in which victims are left with broken bones or permanent disabilities - the recommendations said: "Matters of personal

mitigation are often highly relevant to sentencing for this offence and may justify a non-custodial sentence, particularly in the case of a first-time offender."

It said an attacker who causes grievous bodily harm - which at present sees around six out of ten offenders jailed - might also be kept out of prison if he pleads guilty.

Community punishments will usually be given to those who attack police officers provided they cause only "minor, non-permanent injury".

Common assaults, which end in minor injury, will not bring jail sentences unless there is more than one factor making them more serious.

This means that an attacker can use a knife to cause injury and still escape jail.

Those who cause injuries in planned honour killings or in forced marriages "have abused a position of trust or power and as a result should face a heavier sentence", the guidelines said.

In the case of parents brought to court for smacking children, Lord Phillips and his colleagues said they should not usually be jailed even if they do cause minor injury.

The recommendation appears to undermine Labour's 2004 law which said parents who smack are guilty of assault causing actual bodily harm if they cause bruising, reddening of the skin or psychological harm.

The Tories responded to the recommendations by warning that community sentences for violent offenders will be inadequate.

Spokesman Nick Herbert said: "A tough community punishment for a minor assault would be one thing but last year more than 22,000 unpaid work requirements weren't completed and a third were found to be too easy.

"A voluntary punishment is unacceptable for any crime, especially when a member of the public has been hurt or a police officer assaulted."